Private Bradley Manning, US Army. The worst traitor, biggest black-mailer in history. (soldiers, March)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you feel OK with a world where people are sworn to secrecy, then my opinion here will have no influence. But, the vast majority of the world wants the truth and will break whatever vow they made to reveal it.
I do feel OK in a world where certain things are kept secret and where people display qualities such as honor and loyalty...a world where someone's word means something.
Last edited by GhostInTheShell; 02-08-2011 at 04:15 PM..
Reason: spelling
None of what you said applies. He wasn't issued an unlawful order nor was he witness to any crime (despite what you may take away from some of it). Even if he was, I'm sure they have some sort of process in place for such things. Furthermore, no one coerced him into agreeing to the terms of his clearance. I'm sure, even after enlisting, he went through an enterview and signed another contract before he was ever given access to classified or sensitive information. During that interview I'm sure they explained to him very clearly that if had any misgivings about safeguarding whatever he might learn, no matter what, that if he couldn't handle that type of commitment he should let them know right away so that they could terminate his background check and reassign him to a different field. He agreed to their terms...then proceeded to do the exact opposite of that to which he had agreed. One of the news articles I read said that even during his initial training he had been reprimanded for talking shop with his friends. The guy had issues from day one. And he's hardly doing any of this for moral reasons. Nothing he did made the world a better place. It sounds like he had an axe to grind.
It was a lawful regulation.
Just because it's lawful, has nothing to do it being ethical in some instances to break that regulation. Nobody is arguing what Manning likely did was a not a violation of the regulations. What we are saying that one 1) It did not result in anyone being in danger 2) It brought to light government wrongdoing 3) He did not do it for profit or gain. 4) He's only 22 years old and has a spotless record.
Those facts should be taken into consideration when punishment is decided.
I do feel OK in a world where certain things are kept secret and where people display qualities such as honor and loyalty...a world where someone's world means something.
Even if this kind of world keeps morally repulsive things secret?
I do feel OK in a world where certain things are kept secret and where people display qualities such as honor and loyalty...a world where someone's word means something.
But your concern for "honor" and "loyalty" to the American people goes really down hill when it comes to government lying and wrongdoing?
Are our political leaders not honor and loyalty bound to their citizens?
It only riles you when an American citizen disobeys the government.
But your concern for "honor" and "loyalty" to the American people goes really down hill when it comes to government lying and wrongdoing?
Are our political leaders not honor and loyalty bound to their citizens?
It only riles you when an American citizen disobeys the government.
No, yes and no. Whether or not I agree with the war, we're there. Non-combatants die during war. They do what they can reasonable do to avoid it, but it happens. Exposing and highlighting civilian deaths does nothing but decrease our security; therefore it would be disloyal and stupid of our leaders to hand such things over to the evening news.
The Apache heli video for one. Gunners giggling like 12 year olds playing video game KILLING LIVE HUMAN CIVILIAN BEINGS
They killed what looked like armed combatants in a war zone. Some of them weren't. That's the risk journalists and others take when they hang out with guys carrying AK-47s in places like the middle east.
You make it sound like they go out of their way to shoot everyone they see.
No, yes and no. Whether or not I agree with the war, we're there. Non-combatants die during war. They do what they can reasonable do to avoid it, but it happens. Exposing and highlighting civilian deaths does nothing but decrease our security; therefore it would be disloyal and stupid of our leaders to hand such things over to the evening news.
I find this kind of sentiment appalling as an American paying taxes that (unfortunately) go toward this war, but... rationally - WHY?
How exposing unjust killings decrease our security? What is the worst that is going to happen if they are exposed? Perhaps we should not be doing them in the first place?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
